Related Links

Are Americans’ rights being eroded?

Bruce BensonT-N Columnist

Published: Saturday, April 27, 2013 at 8:22 a.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, April 27, 2013 at 8:22 a.m.

On Monday, this paper ran a story in which China “slammed the human rights record of the United States,” saying that “political donations to election campaigns have undue influence on U.S. policy” and “the U.S. government continues to strengthen the monitoring of its people.”

This was in response to a U.S. report stating that China had “imposed new registration requirements to prevent groups from emerging that might challenge government authority.”

This is a case of the U.S. saying you’re bad, and China saying so are you. Nothing is accomplished by this.

I do know I would much rather live in the U.S. than in China, but is there any truth to China’s allegations?

Allegation 1 — “Political donations to election campaigns have undue influence on U.S. policy.” In what I consider a bizarre decision in 2010, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (ironically, Citizens United describes its mission as being dedicated to restoring the U.S. government to citizens’ control and has accomplished the opposite), the Supreme Court ruled that corporations be considered citizens with all the rights that entails.

One of those rights is to spend an infinite amount of money promoting a political agenda or candidate in any federal election. However, they must remain independent from said candidate. Stephen Colbert had a field day mocking that restriction. Come hither the super PACs (political action committees) with millions — perhaps billions — of dollars to determine the course of American politics.

In my opinion, if this decision is not reversed, as both President Barack Obama and his opponent in the 2008 election, Sen. John McCain, have said it should, the citizen who is not a corporation will soon be “out of the loop.” He or she will be but a pawn to the “super-citizen,” the corporation. But since both the Republicans and Democrats used supercitizen money in the 2012 election, it seems unlikely that the decision will be reversed in the near future.

Allegation 2 — “The U.S. government continues to strengthen the monitoring of its people.” A decade before Citizens United, the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act (boy, they sound good) eroded many rights to privacy held sacrosanct by the American people. Some people complained loudly, but most accepted this as necessary.

Last year, two U.S. legislative attacks on the freedom of the Internet that were on par with Chinese government policy, SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act), were stopped by a massive online protest, led by Wikipedia and others. Without missing a beat, out came the equally benignsounding CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act), and if that is stopped like SOPA and PIPA, another bunch of letters will probably appear to try to accomplish the same thing.

Taken individually, each of these assaults on privacy and freedom may not be capable of great harm to the rights of the American people. It is in their entirety that they are dangerous.

China just might have a point or two.

I hate to comment further on the tragedy in Boston, as it’s all over thousands of papers across the country every day, but since so many groups, from immigration reformists to gun rights activists, are using it to push their agendas, I will.

We simply cannot let what happened in Boston, or 9/11 for that matter, fundamentally change the democracy of this country or the rights of its citizens. But I fear it may be too late.

I was speaking with my friend Gord a few months back, and he warned me that if I wrote what I just wrote, I would be labeled a terrorist and sent to Guantanamo Bay for an indefinite period. After all, if it “suspects” that I’m a terrorist, it is within the U.S. government’s right to lock me up and throw away the key, never charging me with any crime. It can waterboard me as well, and since the International Criminal Court calls waterboarding torture, let me rephrase — it can torture me as well. It can do that to anybody “suspected” of terrorism.

“It’s not the land of the free anymore,” said Gord, echoing a sentiment held by some in the world today. “It may be the home of the brave, but it’s not the land of the free anymore.” Perhaps that’s debatable. If I end up in Guantanamo Bay, it will no longer be debatable,(not to me, anyway), however, I don’t seriously think I will. But the government has the right to do it!

One thing I do know — power corrupts. The more power you give to those in authority, the more likely it will be abused. Years ago, I thought up a formula: X amount of power, over Y amount of time, equals Z percent of probability that the power will be abused. I call it the XYZ formula. As the numbers for X and Y increase, Z approaches 100 percent.

Apply XYZ to the government’s right to incarcerate and torture any of its citizens, and it becomes clear, if the formula is valid, that this power will eventually be abused. The X factor is just so big. It is absolute power. And we know how that corrupts. Look at China.

In our global community, it is incumbent upon us to point out to China and other countries where they fall down on their human rights record. But it’s equally important to be introspective — we’re not perfect, either.

Bruce Benson is a Canadian writer and journalist who makes Hendersonville his home. Reach him at bensonusa@ hotmail.com.

<p>On Monday, this paper ran a story in which China “slammed the human rights record of the United States,” saying that “political donations to election campaigns have undue influence on U.S. policy” and “the U.S. government continues to strengthen the monitoring of its people.”</p><p>This was in response to a U.S. report stating that China had “imposed new registration requirements to prevent groups from emerging that might challenge government authority.”</p><p>This is a case of the U.S. saying you're bad, and China saying so are you. Nothing is accomplished by this.</p><p>I do know I would much rather live in the U.S. than in China, but is there any truth to China's allegations?</p><p>Allegation 1 — “Political donations to election campaigns have undue influence on U.S. policy.” In what I consider a bizarre decision in 2010, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (ironically, Citizens United describes its mission as being dedicated to restoring the U.S. government to citizens' control and has accomplished the opposite), the Supreme Court ruled that corporations be considered citizens with all the rights that entails.</p><p>One of those rights is to spend an infinite amount of money promoting a political agenda or candidate in any federal election. However, they must remain independent from said candidate. Stephen Colbert had a field day mocking that restriction. Come hither the super PACs (political action committees) with millions — perhaps billions — of dollars to determine the course of American politics.</p><p>In my opinion, if this decision is not reversed, as both President Barack Obama and his opponent in the 2008 election, Sen. John McCain, have said it should, the citizen who is not a corporation will soon be “out of the loop.” He or she will be but a pawn to the “super-citizen,” the corporation. But since both the Republicans and Democrats used supercitizen money in the 2012 election, it seems unlikely that the decision will be reversed in the near future.</p><p>Allegation 2 — “The U.S. government continues to strengthen the monitoring of its people.” A decade before Citizens United, the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act (boy, they sound good) eroded many rights to privacy held sacrosanct by the American people. Some people complained loudly, but most accepted this as necessary.</p><p>Last year, two U.S. legislative attacks on the freedom of the Internet that were on par with Chinese government policy, SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act), were stopped by a massive online protest, led by Wikipedia and others. Without missing a beat, out came the equally benignsounding CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act), and if that is stopped like SOPA and PIPA, another bunch of letters will probably appear to try to accomplish the same thing.</p><p>Taken individually, each of these assaults on privacy and freedom may not be capable of great harm to the rights of the American people. It is in their entirety that they are dangerous.</p><p>China just might have a point or two.</p><p>I hate to comment further on the tragedy in Boston, as it's all over thousands of papers across the country every day, but since so many groups, from immigration reformists to gun rights activists, are using it to push their agendas, I will.</p><p>We simply cannot let what happened in Boston, or 9/11 for that matter, fundamentally change the democracy of this country or the rights of its citizens. But I fear it may be too late.</p><p>I was speaking with my friend Gord a few months back, and he warned me that if I wrote what I just wrote, I would be labeled a terrorist and sent to Guantanamo Bay for an indefinite period. After all, if it “suspects” that I'm a terrorist, it is within the U.S. government's right to lock me up and throw away the key, never charging me with any crime. It can waterboard me as well, and since the International Criminal Court calls waterboarding torture, let me rephrase — it can torture me as well. It can do that to anybody “suspected” of terrorism.</p><p>“It's not the land of the free anymore,” said Gord, echoing a sentiment held by some in the world today. “It may be the home of the brave, but it's not the land of the free anymore.” Perhaps that's debatable. If I end up in Guantanamo Bay, it will no longer be debatable,(not to me, anyway), however, I don't seriously think I will. But the government has the right to do it!</p><p>One thing I do know — power corrupts. The more power you give to those in authority, the more likely it will be abused. Years ago, I thought up a formula: X amount of power, over Y amount of time, equals Z percent of probability that the power will be abused. I call it the XYZ formula. As the numbers for X and Y increase, Z approaches 100 percent.</p><p>Apply XYZ to the government's right to incarcerate and torture any of its citizens, and it becomes clear, if the formula is valid, that this power will eventually be abused. The X factor is just so big. It is absolute power. And we know how that corrupts. Look at China.</p><p>In our global community, it is incumbent upon us to point out to China and other countries where they fall down on their human rights record. But it's equally important to be introspective — we're not perfect, either. </p><p>Bruce Benson is a Canadian writer and journalist who makes Hendersonville his home. Reach him at bensonusa@ hotmail.com.</p>